Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Unions raising big cash

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 5, 2008 at 11:37 a.m.
Updated August 5, 2008 at 11:53 p.m.

Text size  

Related Links

More More Business

More stories »

Unions continue to outstrip business groups in their fundraising for the coming battle over a statewide vote on a "right-to-work" amendment and several other ballot measures.

The labor-backed coalition, called Protect Colorado's Future, has raised more than $2.5 million so far, picking up $160,000 more in recent contributions from unions based in states ranging from Montana to Massachusetts.

By contrast, the right-to-work campaign group known as A Better Colorado raised just $400 during the period from July 17 to July 30. It has raised $556,000 to date.

"We'll have enough money to run an effective campaign," said A Better Colorado spokesman Kelley Harp.

Passage of a statewide right-to-work amendment would put an end to workplace arrangements that compel workers to pay fees for union representation. The measure has already been approved to appear on November's ballot.

An issues committee called Defend our Economy, a group backed by trade groups and businesses throughout the state, raised $21,000 in the latest period, mainly from the Colorado Small Business Coalition.

The Defend our Economy group intends to spend its funds to campaign against the labor initiatives. It has not taken any position on the right-to-work issue.

The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce has taken a stand against the amendment, contending that Colorado's current labor law has worked for the state and the business community.

It also opposes several other ballot initiatives the labor community began pushing after right-to-work proponents introduced their measure. It has promised to spend all the campaign money it raises to fight the labor-initiated proposals.

Comments

  • August 5, 2008

    2:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    READ AMENDMENT 47 BELOW:

    Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
    SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
    Section 16. Right to work.

    (1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE "COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT".

    (2)(a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:
    (I) BE A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION; AND
    (II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION OR TO ANY CHARITY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY, IN LIEU OF SUCH PAYMENTS.

    (2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.

    (3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.

    (4) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNION EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL APPLY TO ANY RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF ANY EXISTING UNION CONTRACT.

    (5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "LABOR UNION" MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR ORGANIZATION, THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF WORK, OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER FORMS OF COMPENSATION; ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES; AND ANY ORGANIZATION PROVIDING OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT.

    SECTION 2. Effective date. This amendment shall take effect upon proclamation of the vote by the governor.

  • August 5, 2008

    2:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brockage writes:

    No surprise: special interests like unions always have their ways to get more money; that's their reason for existing. The real question for us taxpayers and consumers is will we see through the blizzard of money and think of the interest of us all in Colorado, not the self-interest of just the usual suspects in the union gangs.

  • August 5, 2008

    4:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lara writes:

    Brockage writes: No surprise: special interests like unions always have their ways to get more money; that's their reason for existing.

    Special interest unions? You mean the groups that represent the middle class, hard working, average Joe and his family so that he is able to get a fair wage and benefits like health care? The reason the unions have received so much funding compared to their opponents is because real, average citizens support them and understand how important it is to stop amendment 47 and its anti-worker companions.

    Instead of picking on the little guys, you should be worried about the multimillionaire special interests that are funding big business... or at least were at the beginning.

  • August 5, 2008

    4:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    oneworker writes:

    It is interesting in this case that workers and their unions are called "special interests" when company's and rich heirs are identified as ""driven by principal." If businesses that benefit by weak work place protections are not "special interests" nothing is.

  • August 5, 2008

    5:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    Unions are government sanctioned cartels with two purposes: control the supply and price of labor. If successful, unions increase prices and decrease quality. If unsuccessful, companies fail and employment levels fall. Unions are the ultimate, protected special interest group.

    Right to work is only protection from forced union dues and the ravages of militant unions. Right to work does not prevent organizing or formation of unions. Right to work only ensures that no one is forced to pay union dues. Unions exist on coercion alone. Without coercion, no company would deal with a union. With right to work, unions are terrified that workers will opt out of union dues. Right to work only provides worker choice and competition for unions. Unions as cartels want to stomp on any competition.

  • August 5, 2008

    5:34 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    YES on Amendment 47 to stop forced Unionism

  • August 6, 2008

    8:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BrianSchwartz writes:

    Supporters of the union-sponsored Colorado Ballot Initiative 92 (”Employer Responsibility for Health Insurance”) want to make it a crime for employers of 20 or more people not to offer them health insurance. When government forces employers to buy you insurance, employers respond by paying you less. This can put minorities and women out of a job.

    To see how, click here:
    http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/0...

  • August 6, 2008

    9:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gramps writes:

    Hooray for us, the working class. I have belonged to a union only once but that job made my family's life better because of the wages and more importantly because of the insurance and pension. We have to stand strong together to fight against the rich becoming more rich because of our hard work. We should be able to support our families and keep jobs in America. Please vote against Amendment 47 and keep our state labor friendly.

  • August 6, 2008

    1:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dakar writes:

    Vote YES to 47 and Colorado's economy will continue to grow, vote NO and we will become like Michigan.

  • August 8, 2008

    10:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    TRILL writes:

    Ugh, you pro-47 shills are the worst. There is NO SUCH THING as FORCED unionism.

  • August 8, 2008

    10:50 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    TRILL writes:

    The people in favor of right-to-work don't care about workers' rights like they claim.

    The fact is right-to-work states make far less than non-RTW states.

    The fact is these people want to take away our right to negotiate for better wages and hours.

    The fact is this whole pro-47 campaign is a scam.

  • August 8, 2008

    2:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Specialk writes:

    The facts are that "right-to-work" states are given the right to work for less when the amendment passes.

    Its no coincidence that the 22 states it passed in make $5,000-$7,000 less.

    Unions are still around because of all of their great historical accomplishments....lets not forget who created weekends.

    The fact is that the only people who should want this to pass are the people who put it on the ballot (billionaire Jake Jabbs, and Jonathan Coors) because when our annual wages go down they make an extra mill or two a year.

    Don't be fooled by false wording...Martin Luther King Jr. wasnt

  • August 8, 2008

    2:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    smlestina writes:

    Amendment 47 is a deceptive amendment designed to confuse the voters. The simple phrase 'Right to Work' is a falsehood conveyed by corporations for decades to bankrupt the middle class. The initial part of the amendment stating that 'union membership shall not be a condition of employment' is redundant, as workers in a union shop have not been required to join since the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. The fee-payer requirement of workers who choose not to join the union is a simple payment for service, as union representation and negiotiation services are still afforded. Think about it like a homeowner's association, everybody pays for the neighborhood to remain in top condition and everyone benefits with a higher value of their home. In a union shop, everyone benefits through higher wages, pensions, health care, artibration, etc.

  • August 8, 2008

    2:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gabbahey writes:

    BrianSchwartz - wrong article??

    Trill- Right on!

    Also: why add this to an already bloated constitution? And why hasn't the 47 group been able to get a group of disgruntled union members to help in their fight - probably because this will only help billionaires lower "labor pressure" aka take money out of hard working people's wallets!

  • August 8, 2008

    2:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    RonPawler writes:

    In every state that has passed "right-to-work" legislation the quality of life has gone down significantly. Look up the statistics. And by the way, people already have the right to decide whether they want to be in a union or not. Look up the Taft Hartley Act of 1947.

    If it ain't broke don't fix it. Plus Amending our constitution (the most complicated state constitution in the country) seem superfluous.

  • August 8, 2008

    3:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    smlestina writes:

    The 22 states that are currently 'Right to Work' make, on average, $6,000-$7,000 less per worker than we make here in Colorado (and that is everyone, not just union workers). It is blatantly obvious that Colorado cannot take any more hits to the economy, and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce (amongst others), a more conservative group in the state, has agreed that this is a counterproductive and unnecessary amendment. This is not a partisan issue, not a pro/anti union issue, this is an issue that effects everyone in the state and should be defeated! This is not put forth by people concerned for 'workers choice', it is an anti-worker initiative put forth by wealth corporations and exectives in order to decrease wages and increase their own wealth. Vote no on Amendment 47 - Save Colorado's Economy!

  • August 8, 2008

    4:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Vspackles writes:

    People are struggling in right-to-work states. The statistics speak volumes. Corporate swine want to pay people less so they can make more. Workers continue to struggle and the middle class is shrinking. If people don't want to work for stores that have unions, then they can go elsewhere to be exploited. The workers need a voice, without it Colorado will fall victim to coporate greed.

    Pete Coors and his coporate buddies want to crap on the middle class and Amendment 47 is a laxative

  • August 8, 2008

    4:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    esolis writes:

    Martin Luther King Jr.
    Speaking on Right-to-work laws in 1961

    In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by FALSE SLOGANS, such as the 'RIGHT TO WORK!' It is a law that robs us of our civil right and job rights... Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone.... Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights! We demand this fraud be stopped. OUR WEAPON is our vote."

    If colorado lets 47 pass we will suffer just like every other state that passed this law! We already are a right to work state but we have the Labor Peace Act 1943. So people can vote a union in or out when ever needed! So dont allow Jonathan Coors (28 years old) break colorados economy! NO on 47!!!!!!!

  • August 12, 2008

    2:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    YES ON 47 TO STOP FORCED UNIONISM

    YES TO STOP FORCED UNION DUES COLLECTIONS

    YES TO STOP FORCED UNION FEE COLECTIONS

    YES TO REAL EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE